Pennsylvania State Department says Jill Stein missed recount deadline

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: WASHINGTON EXAMINER

URL: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305

By PHILIP WEGMANN


Jill Stein has everything she needs to launch a presidential recount. She's got the cash, the grassroots fervor and the spotlight of an adoring media. But there's one thing she needs to overturn Trump's victory: a calendar.

Stein missed Pennsylvania's deadline to file for a voter-initiated recount. That blown deadline is a huge blow for Democrats who have pinned their hopes on recounts in the Keystone State, Michigan and Wisconsin.

"According to Wanda Murren, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of State," the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Monday, "the deadline for a voter-initiated recount was Monday, Nov. 21."

Allied with Clinton's camp, Stein can still mount a legal challenge. While the chances of litigation are uncertain, the vote tally is clear. Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania, a feat not accomplished by a Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1988.

While it wasn't a landslide, it wasn't close either. Trump carried the state by 70,000 votes, a significant margin that will be hard to overcome.

And even if Stein manages a recount in Pennsylvania, nothing's guaranteed. Of the thousands of statewide races in the last 15 years, only 27 have been decided by recounts and only three challengers have pulled off an upset.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

[SirLinksALot]

With Democrats, the law is malleable.

Remember what happened in New Jersey?

Late in the 2002 Senate election against Republican Doug Forrester, Then Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli received a formal letter of admonishment from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics for his involvement with campaign donor David Chang. Torricelli Withdrew from the campaign because of this on September 28,2002, leaving the Democrats with NO CANDIDATE ( actually, Torricelli's name could still be on the ballot ).

The problem was exacerbated when the law stated that a ballot changed could only be allowed before a certain date ( that was WAY BEFORE September 28 ). The Democrats fought all the way to the State Supreme Court to have their replacement, a retired Frank Lautenberg on the ballot.

The New Jersey Republican Party challenged the replacing of Torricelli with Lautenberg, citing that the timing was too close to the election, and, per New Jersey law, the change could not be allowed.

Guess what? Law or no law, the ballot name change was unanimously upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court, who cited that the law did not provide for a situation like Torricelli's, and said that leaving Torricelli on the ballot would be an unfair advantage for Forrester.

The GOP then took the case to the SCOTUS.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Lautenberg defeated Forrester in the general election, 54% to 44%, and took office for his fourth term in January 20.

SO, WITH THIS PRECEDENT, WHY SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE IN PENNSYLVANIA?

[Frank Cannon]

While the chances of litigation are uncertain,

No. The chances are certain. PA runs fairly clean elections and there is no way this is going to go anywhere. All Shill Stein has to hang her hat on is MI and WI, and those are not going to pan out.

[Talisker]

With Democrats, the law is malleable.

Remember what happened in New Jersey?

SO, WITH THIS PRECEDENT, WHY SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE IN PENNSYLVANIA?

While I agree the Torriceli-Lautenberg case is an outrage, it doesn't establish precedent for Pennsylvania - it's too broad a gap. First of all, Pennsylvania is post election recount, whereas T-L is pre-election ballot. Secondly these are State procedural issues, and so cannot be directly compared unless taken to their federal level, and SCOTUS refused to hear T-L so that's gonna be a problem right there. So in the end, PA law directly addresses this issue, while NJ law didn't.

Ergo, Trump won PA and that won't change.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

While the chances of litigation are uncertain,

No. The chances are certain. PA runs fairly clean elections and there is no way this is going to go anywhere. All Shill Stein has to hang her hat on is MI and WI, and those are not going to pan out.

Guess she'll have to keep the 6 mil huh? I'm sure she's upset about that.

[libertybele]

Guess she'll have to keep the 6 mil huh? I'm sure she's upset about that.

She is demanding that the votes be recounted by hand which is a very time consuming undertaking.  If WI doesn't meet their Dec. 13 deadline of when votes need to be recounted; then there is a possibility that Trump may not get WI's 10 electoral votes.  If she manages to do this in MI or PA as well, Trump would only have 244 electoral votes.  So ... would the election be turned over to the Supreme Court or to the House for a decision? The way the SCOTUS has ruled in the past year or so, I would expect them to rule in favor of Clinton.

[Vulcan]

[libertybele]

That's my feeling too...but IF both WI and MI are forced to recount ballot by hand it will be nearly impossible for those states to certify the recount by the deadline leaving Trump short the amount of electoral votes needed.

[TomSea]

Sorry if I repeat what is mentioned otherwise, Allegheny county still has to certify their votes.

So, that seems to be Pittsburgh and the surrounding area.

Otherwise, I heard additionally that even if these electoral votes were flipped, then it goes to the House and they will select Trump. Supposedly, so we'll see. 

[mystery-ak]

excerpt from Rush today

If they could delay the Electoral College vote, which is scheduled for December 19th, what if these three recounts are designed -- let me ask you this.  So Wisconsin's gonna start.  It is November 28th.  Do you think Wisconsin can be finished with their recount if they decide to hand count by December 19th?  If they're not finished, if Wisconsin is not finished by December 19th and the winner of the stated is not certified, the elector for Wisconsin cannot vote, the electors.  What if they succeed in the same thing in Michigan?

What if they succeed in denying Trump whatever number of electoral votes because the electors in those states can't vote 'cause the election there is not yet certified.  What if Trump doesn't get to 270 on December 19th simply because a number of states haven't reported because they're still in recount?

Well, then the election goes to the House.  In which case Donald Trump's gonna be elected and Mike Pence is gonna be elected in the Senate as vice president, and you're gonna end up with the same result, but it's all going -- the Democrats could then say, "He didn't win anything, he didn't even get 270.  This is outrageous!  The Republicans nominated and elected their own president and violated the Democrat --"  I can hear it now.  I can just hear it all now how none of this is legitimate. The country has been stolen by Trump and these Republicans and there was nothing fair and there was nothing legitimate.

And if you think Florida 2000 was bad -- and do not doubt me, they would be happy to live this way.  They would consider, the Democrats, this would be one of the greatest success stories that they could ever tell themselves.  And make no mistake, they are entirely capable of this.  And don't make another mistake.  Hillary Clinton would be right in there supporting this.  Every Democrat under the sun, from Barack Obama on down.  And if Fidel Castro were still alive, he would sign on to it, and they would gladly have him.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/28/from_fake_news_conspiracies_to_the_jill_stein_recount_the_left_is_trying_to_delegitimize_trump_s_presidency

RUSH:  Is that right?  That makes perfect sense.  I'm gonna have to check into this.  I was just told that if, for example, Wisconsin doesn't finish, then you throw their electoral votes out totally and the number does not become 270, it becomes whatever.  So 270 is only a majority of the available votes.  So if Wisconsin electoral votes are not ready and not counted, then the number Trump needs is not 270, it's a lesser number.

I have to check into this.  That would nuke the theory that one of the Democrats' efforts here is to get three states not -- or two states not to report by December 19th, which would take those electoral votes away from Trump, meaning that would take -- well, if all three could take him down like 265, 266, if they were all delayed, but now I'm told that if Wisconsin or any other state or a combination of states, if their electors don't vote on December 19th, then the total electoral vote is reduced by that number of electoral votes and the 270 threshold reduces proportionately.

So I need to check into that, because one of the theories out there on this recount is that they're simply trying to delay enough states, these three, from reporting by December 19th, which means those electors could not vote, which means Trump would be denied those votes, which would reduce his majority over 270.  Even when you beat 'em, they never stop.

[Vulcan]

If a recount happens, all the ballots — all 4,799,284 votes in the presidential race — will be counted by hand at the county level under state supervision. It’s a process that will begin within 48 hours of a request coming in, but it may not finish until further into December, because another candidate has seven days to challenge the recount request. The Board of Canvassers will hear arguments on the challenge if it's filed and rule within five days.

A recount would start, but then be paused while the Board of Canvassers resolves the challenge.  That would make it difficult for a recount to be done before a Dec. 13 deadline, which is six days before the electoral college — including Michigan's 16 members — will meet on Dec. 19 to cast votes for the winning candidate. The state is still researching how the time line of a recount will affect Michigan's electoral votes, Thomas said.

But he noted that the U.S. Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida in the 2000 election before it was finished in order to make the Dec. 13 deadline, which ultimately made George W. Bush the winner in that election.

source

[jmyrlefuller]

Pennsylvania State Department says Jill Stein missed recount deadline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajiZVkZib0A

[Vulcan]

Despite her successful fundraising effort, state law makes Jill Stein’s Pennsylvania recount next to impossible.

According to state law three voters in each precinct or election district in Pennsylvania must submit a notarized affidavit to the clerk in their individual election districts in order to initiate a recount.

There are 9,163 precincts in Pennsylvania.

That would be a monumental task.

source